Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Popular Mechanics)   Everything you wanted to know about drones but were afraid to ask without being placed on a government watch list   (popularmechanics.com ) divider line
    More: Interesting, ground station, Reaper drones, air assault, targeted killings, UAVs  
•       •       •

4235 clicks; posted to Geek » on 13 Feb 2013 at 10:38 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



82 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all

 
2013-02-13 10:45:32 AM  
I hope the government keeps their lists at ShortList.com.

/Nobody ever reads those damn things.
 
2013-02-13 10:46:11 AM  
They forgot to ask why the government wants to watch me poop, from 30,000 feet.
 
2013-02-13 10:47:06 AM  
I worked directly with Global Hawk ground crews to prep them for takeoff on my last deployment in the Air Force.  They were surprisingly relaxed people considering the clearance level of most of their missions.

/their hangar was the best place to take a break
//really good air conditioning
 
2013-02-13 10:47:57 AM  
Can someone explain to me why people are freaking out about drones so much? Why do you not have a problem with a plane or a missile destroying killing everyone in a building but if its from a drone you freak out? If everyone is getting killed, who cares what dropped the bomb.

Is this one of those "I am frightened by new technology" things.

I know I will get people just flipping out or name calling because they probably don't actually have a rational answer but I am really curious.
 
2013-02-13 10:53:04 AM  
Oh, so Subby's just positive that clicking the link won't get me on a watch list. Uh huh. Suuure.
I bet next you're going to tell me Ceiling Cat isn't watching me masturbate.

images.sodahead.com
 
2013-02-13 10:54:30 AM  

Corvus: Can someone explain to me why people are freaking out about drones so much? Why do you not have a problem with a plane or a missile destroying killing everyone in a building but if its from a drone you freak out? If everyone is getting killed, who cares what dropped the bomb.

Is this one of those "I am frightened by new technology" things.

I know I will get people just flipping out or name calling because they probably don't actually have a rational answer but I am really curious.


It's not (necessarily) that people are freaked out about the new technology, but that the level of automation means that the amount of surveillance you can do with a limited amount of manpower is increased exponentially.  It's a lot like the case about sticking a GPS to a car instead of having a police officer tail it personally.  A single police officer tailing a vehicle is a significant manpower investment for the information gained, but a single person staring at a computer monitor could watch dozens of GPS trackers moving around a map from the comfort of an office.  Where you would need a whole squad of police to run around all day doing yard checks in a large suburban neighborhood, an unmanned drone could do a flyover of the area in a matter of hours or even minutes, not have to ask permission to check yards behind privacy fences, and might not even be noticed by the people being snooped on.
 
2013-02-13 11:16:04 AM  

Corvus: Can someone explain to me why people are freaking out about drones so much?


When people talk about the "drone controversy" they're referring to a controversy involving drones, i.e. the fact that we're racking up pretty big collateral damage and civilian casualty numbers using them in the middle east and southwestern Asia.  It's not about the drones themselves any more than the Watergate scandal was about whether the Watergate hotel was an appropriate place to store records or not.

I mean, there  are some outright luddites out there, but that's not actually the policy issue that's being being argued, it's the bombing of civilian-inhabited areas and the targeting of specific criminals (some of them US citizens) for assassination by the US government that's got people up in arms.  Calling it "the drone issue" is just sort of lumping all of the various issues with misapplication of military force into a neat category that separates it from, say, the similar issues under the Bush administration, which tend to just be called "invading Iraq".
 
2013-02-13 11:20:47 AM  

Arumat: an unmanned drone could do a flyover of the area in a matter of hours or even minutes, not have to ask permission to check yards behind privacy fences, and might not even be noticed by the people being snooped on.


A cop could also walk up and stick his head over your fence and look into your yard.

Neither of those things, however, are admissible in court, as any info gained is not in plain view and they can't look in without probable cause.  Can't even be used to get a warrant, unless the sweep of the area was sanctioned by another warrant that itself had probable cause.
 
2013-02-13 11:24:04 AM  

Corvus: Can someone explain to me why people are freaking out about drones so much? Why do you not have a problem with a plane or a missile destroying killing everyone in a building but if its from a drone you freak out? If everyone is getting killed, who cares what dropped the bomb.

Is this one of those "I am frightened by new technology" things.

I know I will get people just flipping out or name calling because they probably don't actually have a rational answer but I am really curious.




I know. I don't get it.

I say blanket the sky with drones. Blot out the sun. If you are doing notining wrong, what's to fear?
 
2013-02-13 11:25:38 AM  

Jim_Callahan: Neither of those things, however, are admissible in court, as any info gained is not in plain view and they can't look in without probable cause. Can't even be used to get a warrant, unless the sweep of the area was sanctioned by another warrant that itself had probable cause.


"We received an anonymous tip that there is a house/property being utilized for drug manufacture in the area. To minimize disruption to residents, we used aerial surveillance to determine the accuracy of this statement."
 
2013-02-13 11:26:00 AM  

StoPPeRmobile: Corvus: Can someone explain to me why people are freaking out about drones so much? Why do you not have a problem with a plane or a missile destroying killing everyone in a building but if its from a drone you freak out? If everyone is getting killed, who cares what dropped the bomb.

Is this one of those "I am frightened by new technology" things.

I know I will get people just flipping out or name calling because they probably don't actually have a rational answer but I am really curious.

I know. I don't get it.

I say blanket the sky with drones. Blot out the sun. If you are doing notining wrong, what's to fear?


Wow way to strawman. No I am just saying whats the difference if they are spy planes or drones?

So you are ok with blanketing the sky with spy planes as long as they are not drones? See I am against either, you seem to only be against if they are drones.
 
2013-02-13 11:28:51 AM  

Arumat: Corvus: Can someone explain to me why people are freaking out about drones so much? Why do you not have a problem with a plane or a missile destroying killing everyone in a building but if its from a drone you freak out? If everyone is getting killed, who cares what dropped the bomb.

Is this one of those "I am frightened by new technology" things.

I know I will get people just flipping out or name calling because they probably don't actually have a rational answer but I am really curious.

It's not (necessarily) that people are freaked out about the new technology, but that the level of automation means that the amount of surveillance you can do with a limited amount of manpower is increased exponentially.  It's a lot like the case about sticking a GPS to a car instead of having a police officer tail it personally.  A single police officer tailing a vehicle is a significant manpower investment for the information gained, but a single person staring at a computer monitor could watch dozens of GPS trackers moving around a map from the comfort of an office.  Where you would need a whole squad of police to run around all day doing yard checks in a large suburban neighborhood, an unmanned drone could do a flyover of the area in a matter of hours or even minutes, not have to ask permission to check yards behind privacy fences, and might not even be noticed by the people being snooped on.


Drones don't work that way. They don't fly around automatically. They have pilots, they just aren't on the plane.

So then you believe a spy satellite takes more man power than a drone for foot by foot coverage? And I am not specifically talking about police use, I am talking about military use in particular,
 
2013-02-13 11:30:04 AM  

Jim_Callahan: Arumat: an unmanned drone could do a flyover of the area in a matter of hours or even minutes, not have to ask permission to check yards behind privacy fences, and might not even be noticed by the people being snooped on.

A cop could also walk up and stick his head over your fence and look into your yard.

Neither of those things, however, are admissible in court, as any info gained is not in plain view and they can't look in without probable cause.  Can't even be used to get a warrant, unless the sweep of the area was sanctioned by another warrant that itself had probable cause.


That just sounds like a little paperwork and some lying. No big.
 
2013-02-13 11:31:18 AM  

Jim_Callahan: Corvus: Can someone explain to me why people are freaking out about drones so much?

When people talk about the "drone controversy" they're referring to a controversy involving drones, i.e. the fact that we're racking up pretty big collateral damage and civilian casualty numbers using them in the middle east and southwestern Asia.  It's not about the drones themselves any more than the Watergate scandal was about whether the Watergate hotel was an appropriate place to store records or not.

I mean, there  are some outright luddites out there, but that's not actually the policy issue that's being being argued, it's the bombing of civilian-inhabited areas and the targeting of specific criminals (some of them US citizens) for assassination by the US government that's got people up in arms.  Calling it "the drone issue" is just sort of lumping all of the various issues with misapplication of military force into a neat category that separates it from, say, the similar issues under the Bush administration, which tend to just be called "invading Iraq".


And they believe dropping bombs from planes or missiles from ships don't cause collateral damage?

It IS about drones though. They keep mentioning them specifically again and again. See I have already gotten 3 different answers why they are against "drones" (which none makes sense because we have other technology that does the same thing that people do not seem to have a problem with) and not all of them are about collateral damage.
 
2013-02-13 11:33:16 AM  

StoPPeRmobile: Corvus: Can someone explain to me why people are freaking out about drones so much? Why do you not have a problem with a plane or a missile destroying killing everyone in a building but if its from a drone you freak out? If everyone is getting killed, who cares what dropped the bomb.

Is this one of those "I am frightened by new technology" things.

I know I will get people just flipping out or name calling because they probably don't actually have a rational answer but I am really curious.

I know. I don't get it.

I say blanket the sky with drones. Blot out the sun. If you are doing notining wrong, what's to fear?


See this is exactly what I am talking about.

Police helicopters monitoring - No Problem
Spy Satellite monitoring - No Problem
Spy plane with person on it monitoring - No Problem
Drone - OMG THEY ARE GOING TO BLANKET THE SKY WITH THEM AND WATCH EVERY MOVE I MAKE BECAUSE IT'S SOMETHING NEW TO ME!
 
2013-02-13 11:35:46 AM  

Jim_Callahan: When people talk about the "drone controversy" they're referring to a controversy involving drones, i.e. the fact that we're racking up pretty big collateral damage and civilian casualty numbers using them in the middle east and southwestern Asia.


Actually we really are doing about the same collateral damage we always do. We had about 100,000 innocent dead in the start of the iraq war but when they are collateral damage from drones people seem to focus on them much much more than when they are from older technologies.
 
2013-02-13 11:36:50 AM  

Corvus: Drones don't work that way. They don't fly around automatically. They have pilots, they just aren't on the plane.


As far as we know, that's true today. It may not be true tomorrow. Hopefully the armed ones, at least, will always have pilots. But autopilots are old technology, and with advanced optics and facial recognition software, powerline taps, and lightweight batteries, completely automated spy drones are not outside the reach of today's technology.
 
2013-02-13 11:45:44 AM  

snowjack: Corvus: Drones don't work that way. They don't fly around automatically. They have pilots, they just aren't on the plane.

As far as we know, that's true today...


Survey craft are typically fully automated, at least in the sense of doing their route without human intervention.  They may need a manual assist for landing, I don't know.

Anything with a bomb on it has a constant pilot, though, due to ethical considerations that don't really apply to just taking pictures of shiat.

grinding_journalist: "We received an anonymous tip that there is a house/property being utilized for drug manufacture in the area. To minimize disruption to residents, we used aerial surveillance to determine the accuracy of this statement."


Nope, you have to corroborate an anonymous tip with actual evidence before an entry warrant may be granted.  Otherwise you're still restricted to plain view.

If they used that rationale even a drunk lawyer that had just received a lobotomy would eat their lunch so thoroughly that the cop's great-grandchildren would still be making payments to the property owner's estate right up to when the zombies eat them all.
 
2013-02-13 11:48:43 AM  
 
2013-02-13 11:52:04 AM  

Corvus: And they believe dropping bombs from planes or missiles from ships don't cause collateral damage?


The difference between an armed drone and a manned aircraft is that, at least in theory, a manned aircraft means that you've got some "skin in the game".  In theory, your manned aircraft could be shot down, exposing a pilot to possible death, injury, or capture.

If an opponent downs one of your drones, all you've lost is a piece of equipment.

This makes it much easier from the perspective of a government to use lethal force because the potential costs are very low, especially in remote areas against brown people.
 
2013-02-13 11:55:36 AM  

snowjack: Corvus: Drones don't work that way. They don't fly around automatically. They have pilots, they just aren't on the plane.

As far as we know, that's true today. It may not be true tomorrow. Hopefully the armed ones, at least, will always have pilots. But autopilots are old technology, and with advanced optics and facial recognition software, powerline taps, and lightweight batteries, completely automated spy drones are not outside the reach of today's technology.


You mean like spy satellites that we already have?

See this is exactly like what I was saying. It seems to be this new fear of some new technology that people gob into these hypothetical fears. It's exactly what I am talking about?
 
2013-02-13 11:56:55 AM  

dittybopper: Corvus: And they believe dropping bombs from planes or missiles from ships don't cause collateral damage?

The difference between an armed drone and a manned aircraft is that, at least in theory, a manned aircraft means that you've got some "skin in the game".  In theory, your manned aircraft could be shot down, exposing a pilot to possible death, injury, or capture.

If an opponent downs one of your drones, all you've lost is a piece of equipment.

This makes it much easier from the perspective of a government to use lethal force because the potential costs are very low, especially in remote areas against brown people.


So you are ok with cruise missiles to kill brown people because they cost millions of dollars to use? or someone in a plane to kill brown people because it puts an American soldiers life in danger?
 
2013-02-13 12:09:52 PM  
It all depends on what size you're talking about.  They all have limitations and advantages of some kind or another.
 
2013-02-13 12:13:43 PM  

Jim_Callahan: Nope, you have to corroborate an anonymous tip with actual evidence before an entry warrant may be granted. Otherwise you're still restricted to plain view.

If they used that rationale even a drunk lawyer that had just received a lobotomy would eat their lunch so thoroughly that the cop's great-grandchildren would still be making payments to the property owner's estate right up to when the zombies eat them all.


Meanwhile, in the real world, cops and the courts behind them do illegal shiat all the time and justify it later. I'd love it if the authorities adhered to the laws they enforce, but that's simply not the case.
 
2013-02-13 12:21:59 PM  

Corvus: dittybopper: Corvus: And they believe dropping bombs from planes or missiles from ships don't cause collateral damage?

The difference between an armed drone and a manned aircraft is that, at least in theory, a manned aircraft means that you've got some "skin in the game".  In theory, your manned aircraft could be shot down, exposing a pilot to possible death, injury, or capture.

If an opponent downs one of your drones, all you've lost is a piece of equipment.

This makes it much easier from the perspective of a government to use lethal force because the potential costs are very low, especially in remote areas against brown people.

So you are ok with cruise missiles to kill brown people because they cost millions of dollars to use? or someone in a plane to kill brown people because it puts an American soldiers life in danger?


How about we just don't bomb the brown people?  Seems like that might be the best solution for all involved.
 
2013-02-13 12:24:03 PM  

Corvus: So you are ok with cruise missiles to kill brown people because they cost millions of dollars to use?
or someone in a plane to kill brown people because it puts an American soldiers life in danger?


I'm actually OK with that.  I was a soldier once (albeit an intel weenie).  The idea that there should be at least some risk of losing US lives when we engage in military actions is a *GOOD* thing:  It helps act as a restraint upon unnecessary use of that force.  We can balance the potential loss to the US against our interests, and decide if it's worth it.

If, on the other hand, there is essentially zero risk that an American service member will get anything worse than a mild case of hemorrhoids, then that opens up the possibility of military action where previously we wouldn't have used it.

Think of your worst nightmare of an administration from a foreign policy standpoint.  Doesn't matter what party or ideology, just imagine them having the ability to remotely kill people they designate as enemies with no political costs.
 
2013-02-13 12:27:35 PM  
Personally, my problem is that it cheapens war, literally. War should cost a hell of a lot of money and blood, so that decision makers have to carefully consider everything before going to war. "Send in the drones" makes it dirt cheap, little to no chance of friendly casualties, and much more permissible to 51% of the voters (which is the important part). The paradigm, how we as Americans approach warfare, has shifted. It's not a big, terrible sacrifice, flag-draped coffins, sad violin music over grim letters home, anymore. It's more like cubicles and water coolers. It's just as banal as an insurance office (who also treat death and dismemberment as an abstract bookkeeping exercise). Lethal force shouldn't be authorized w/ the equivalent of a TPS report, but it looks like that's the way it's heading.
 
2013-02-13 12:40:40 PM  
When you take the pain out of war (for your side) then suddenly violence is no longer the last resort.  If sending in your people's brothers, sisters, fathers and mothers is what it takes to get something done, and you can sell that to the public then maybe it's necessary.  When you only have to risk the national equivalent of a toaster, it starts to seem a lot easier than diplomacy, negotiations, and the compromise that comes with it.
 
2013-02-13 12:41:38 PM  

GanjSmokr: Corvus: dittybopper: Corvus: And they believe dropping bombs from planes or missiles from ships don't cause collateral damage?

The difference between an armed drone and a manned aircraft is that, at least in theory, a manned aircraft means that you've got some "skin in the game".  In theory, your manned aircraft could be shot down, exposing a pilot to possible death, injury, or capture.

If an opponent downs one of your drones, all you've lost is a piece of equipment.

This makes it much easier from the perspective of a government to use lethal force because the potential costs are very low, especially in remote areas against brown people.

So you are ok with cruise missiles to kill brown people because they cost millions of dollars to use? or someone in a plane to kill brown people because it puts an American soldiers life in danger?

How about we just don't bomb the brown people?  Seems like that might be the best solution for all involved.


Sure but then shut up about blaming the "drones" that is my point in the first place.
 
2013-02-13 12:43:40 PM  
Err.... I thought the issue was that we were using assassinations again? You know, skipping the whole "due process" thing and just killing dudes, up to and including US Citizens. And we just happen to be using drones to do it.
 
2013-02-13 12:45:25 PM  

dittybopper: Corvus: So you are ok with cruise missiles to kill brown people because they cost millions of dollars to use?
or someone in a plane to kill brown people because it puts an American soldiers life in danger?

I'm actually OK with that.  I was a soldier once (albeit an intel weenie).  The idea that there should be at least some risk of losing US lives when we engage in military actions is a *GOOD* thing:  It helps act as a restraint upon unnecessary use of that force.  We can balance the potential loss to the US against our interests, and decide if it's worth it.

If, on the other hand, there is essentially zero risk that an American service member will get anything worse than a mild case of hemorrhoids, then that opens up the possibility of military action where previously we wouldn't have used it.

Think of your worst nightmare of an administration from a foreign policy standpoint.  Doesn't matter what party or ideology, just imagine them having the ability to remotely kill people they designate as enemies with no political costs.


But that's not what is happening. Once again this is all a theoretical not based in the reality of the situation and also not a specific issue about drones.

Serious you thinking that if we put more US troops life in danger it will stop people from having wars I think is pretty unrealistic.

You were an intel weenie? Then you demanded to do you intel work were where you could get shot right? Because you'd be a hypocrite to say that you wanted the safety of your office while demanding others to be put in danger... Right?
 
2013-02-13 12:50:45 PM  

Grither: Err.... I thought the issue was that we were using assassinations again? You know, skipping the whole "due process" thing and just killing dudes, up to and including US Citizens. And we just happen to be using drones to do it.


No it'shiatting military targets who side fight the enemy in times of war. We don't give people trials during war time when they are with the enemy and they are not in our custody/jurisdiction, even when they are Americans. We never have.

Now if we have them in our custody that is different but if they fight for the enemy we still don't give them a normal trial. The problem seems to me is people what to pretend the "war on terrorism" is not a war. Now you and I might not think it SHOULD be a "War" but officially it is because congress gave the POTUS the use of military force. You don't sit around and try to capture people and try them during war. You bomb strategic targets that are the enemy. That's how it has always been, it's not new to drones.


If you think we gave everyone trials and didn't kill innocent people in collateral please read something about WWII.
 
2013-02-13 12:56:27 PM  

Corvus: dittybopper: Corvus: So you are ok with cruise missiles to kill brown people because they cost millions of dollars to use?
or someone in a plane to kill brown people because it puts an American soldiers life in danger?

I'm actually OK with that.  I was a soldier once (albeit an intel weenie).  The idea that there should be at least some risk of losing US lives when we engage in military actions is a *GOOD* thing:  It helps act as a restraint upon unnecessary use of that force.  We can balance the potential loss to the US against our interests, and decide if it's worth it.

If, on the other hand, there is essentially zero risk that an American service member will get anything worse than a mild case of hemorrhoids, then that opens up the possibility of military action where previously we wouldn't have used it.

Think of your worst nightmare of an administration from a foreign policy standpoint.  Doesn't matter what party or ideology, just imagine them having the ability to remotely kill people they designate as enemies with no political costs.

But that's not what is happening. Once again this is all a theoretical not based in the reality of the situation and also not a specific issue about drones.

Serious you thinking that if we put more US troops life in danger it will stop people from having wars I think is pretty unrealistic.

You were an intel weenie? Then you demanded to do you intel work were where you could get shot right? Because you'd be a hypocrite to say that you wanted the safety of your office while demanding others to be put in danger... Right?


Holy crap you're obtuse.  I don't think anybody here is advocating putting more people in danger.  It seems pretty much the opposite to me.  When military action requires putting lives at risk, it's hopeful that this would act as a deterrent to resorting to military action in the first place.  And while the conversation at hand could be abstracted to all branches of foreign and military policy, at the moment we are talking about extensions of the use of drones, and how a theoretical future administration could use them as a stepping stone to potential abuses of power.  As an example, could you imagine Nixon would've used the DHS and drones if they had existed when he was in office?  Could you imagine what kinds of crap might go down if we had another Joe McArthy?
 
2013-02-13 01:10:24 PM  

Arumat: Corvus: dittybopper: Corvus: So you are ok with cruise missiles to kill brown people because they cost millions of dollars to use?
or someone in a plane to kill brown people because it puts an American soldiers life in danger?

I'm actually OK with that.  I was a soldier once (albeit an intel weenie).  The idea that there should be at least some risk of losing US lives when we engage in military actions is a *GOOD* thing:  It helps act as a restraint upon unnecessary use of that force.  We can balance the potential loss to the US against our interests, and decide if it's worth it.

If, on the other hand, there is essentially zero risk that an American service member will get anything worse than a mild case of hemorrhoids, then that opens up the possibility of military action where previously we wouldn't have used it.

Think of your worst nightmare of an administration from a foreign policy standpoint.  Doesn't matter what party or ideology, just imagine them having the ability to remotely kill people they designate as enemies with no political costs.

But that's not what is happening. Once again this is all a theoretical not based in the reality of the situation and also not a specific issue about drones.

Serious you thinking that if we put more US troops life in danger it will stop people from having wars I think is pretty unrealistic.

You were an intel weenie? Then you demanded to do you intel work were where you could get shot right? Because you'd be a hypocrite to say that you wanted the safety of your office while demanding others to be put in danger... Right?

Holy crap you're obtuse.  I don't think anybody here is advocating putting more people in danger.  It seems pretty much the opposite to me.  When military action requires putting lives at risk, it's hopeful that this would act as a deterrent to resorting to military action in the first place.  And while the conversation at hand could be abstracted to all branches of foreign and military policy, at the ...


And here comes the insults, like I said.


I don't think anybody here is advocating putting more people in danger.

Oh really?

dittybopper: Corvus: So you are ok with cruise missiles to kill brown people because they cost millions of dollars to use?
or someone in a plane to kill brown people because it puts an American soldiers life in danger?

I'm actually OK with that. I was a soldier once (albeit an intel weenie). The idea that there should be at least some risk of losing US lives when we engage in military actions is a *GOOD* thing: It helps act as a restraint upon unnecessary use of that force. We can balance the potential loss to the US against our interests, and decide if it's worth it.


Then what the hell was that?
 
2013-02-13 01:11:42 PM  

Arumat: Holy crap you're obtuse. I don't think anybody here is advocating putting more people in danger


dittybopper: The idea that there should be at least some risk of losing US lives when we engage in military actions is a *GOOD* thing: It helps act as a restraint upon unnecessary use of that force.



Ummmm, that's what that looks like to me.
 
2013-02-13 01:16:45 PM  

Arumat: at the moment we are talking about extensions of the use of drones, and how a theoretical future administration could use them as a stepping stone to potential abuses of power.


But you have no problem with cruise missiles being used, or spy satellites for evil purposes?  Why again?

I am against abuses of power no matter what technology is used for it. So to me it seems stupid to focus only on one single thing and as you illustrated it seems to be a fear of something new that you think could do things it can't now in the future. Even though spy satellites and cruise could do those things too just that they have been around so their is not this amorphous future fear in the same way about those.
 
2013-02-13 01:18:33 PM  

snowjack: Oh, so Subby's just positive that clicking the link won't get me on a watch list. Uh huh. Suuure.
I bet next you're going to tell me Ceiling Cat isn't watching me masturbate.

[images.sodahead.com image 616x425]


What if I told you that there is an armed military drone that loiters within a target area, which relays CSI-like computer enhanced imaging data to its remote human controllers, but also performs onboard analysis of the data with sophisticated recognition algorithms so that it can autonomously fire upon a target of opportunity?

What if I told you that this drone is being marketed for civilian use?

What if I told you that Focus on the Family and the American Family Association have demanded that local, state, and perhaps the Federal government should use these drones to monitor the populace for immoral activity, such as drug trafficking, prostitution, public drunkenness, and masturbation?

What if I told you that the military designation for this drone is:

Computer  Enhanced  Imaging,  Loitering INtelligence Gathering Craft, Autonomous Targeting.
 
2013-02-13 01:24:06 PM  

Arumat: could you imagine Nixon would've used the DHS and drones if they had existed when he was in office


What's interesting to me is that Nixon tapped one little phone without a warrant and it brought down his entire presidency.  Compare that to what goes on every single day now.
 
2013-02-13 01:27:19 PM  

BullBearMS: Arumat: could you imagine Nixon would've used the DHS and drones if they had existed when he was in office

What's interesting to me is that Nixon tapped one little phone without a warrant and it brought down his entire presidency.  Compare that to what goes on every single day now.


Umm not really. There was more to it then just that. I've seen your posts before and am not too surprised that you are Nixon appologist.

You probably think McCarthy got a bum rap too right?
 
2013-02-13 01:28:17 PM  

Corvus: BullBearMS: Arumat: could you imagine Nixon would've used the DHS and drones if they had existed when he was in office

What's interesting to me is that Nixon tapped one little phone without a warrant and it brought down his entire presidency.  Compare that to what goes on every single day now.

Umm not really. There was more to it then just that. I've seen your posts before and am not too surprised that you are Nixon appologist.

You probably think McCarthy got a bum rap too right?


So you're saying that Nixon tapped every single American's phone like Bush and Obama?
 
2013-02-13 01:32:50 PM  

grinding_journalist: Meanwhile, in the real world, cops and the courts behind them do illegal shiat all the time and justify it later. I'd love it if the authorities adhered to the laws they enforce, but that's simply not the case.


Yes.  When they can get away with it.  In this case, they could not, because of how discovery works.  They try not to do stuff that will get half of their evidence tossed and embarrass the DA, because an angry DA is not a good way to  stay a cop.

Police corruption is usually pretty single-party as far as the actual crimes go, as well, for the same reason any conspiracy wants to minimize the number of people involved: fewer mouths mean fewer potential revealing words.  Having the prosecutor, the cops, and a judge all in on it tends to be bad unless you've pulled a Sheriff Joe and become a stereotypical cartoon villain lording over an area like your personal fief.
 
2013-02-13 01:48:21 PM  

Corvus: You were an intel weenie? Then you demanded to do you intel work were where you could get shot right? Because you'd be a hypocrite to say that you wanted the safety of your office while demanding others to be put in danger... Right?


Well, at the time, we weren't at war.  Plus, it's hard to copy Morse with the sound of gunshots in your ears.  We call that "QRM", and it actually interferes with collecting the signals intelligence necessary, though tactical SIGINT units have come under fire in the past.  I was in a strategic, not tactical unit.

Having said that, my younger brother was a Marine during Gulf War I, and my best friend was an Army medic there, and my youngest brother served in Bosnia, Afghanistan, and Iraq.

On the flip side of that, do you think it's appropriate for the US to kill people without putting US troops at risk?  Is that your idea of smart diplomacy?
 
2013-02-13 01:57:10 PM  

BullBearMS: Corvus: BullBearMS: Arumat: could you imagine Nixon would've used the DHS and drones if they had existed when he was in office

What's interesting to me is that Nixon tapped one little phone without a warrant and it brought down his entire presidency.  Compare that to what goes on every single day now.

Umm not really. There was more to it then just that. I've seen your posts before and am not too surprised that you are Nixon appologist.

You probably think McCarthy got a bum rap too right?

So you're saying that Nixon tapped every single American's phone like Bush and Obama?


Look up "Pentagon Papers". Educate yourself.
 
2013-02-13 02:21:14 PM  

PanicMan: BullBearMS: Corvus: BullBearMS: Arumat: could you imagine Nixon would've used the DHS and drones if they had existed when he was in office

What's interesting to me is that Nixon tapped one little phone without a warrant and it brought down his entire presidency.  Compare that to what goes on every single day now.

Umm not really. There was more to it then just that. I've seen your posts before and am not too surprised that you are Nixon appologist.

You probably think McCarthy got a bum rap too right?

So you're saying that Nixon tapped every single American's phone like Bush and Obama?

Look up "Pentagon Papers". Educate yourself.


Pay attention to what the Senators currently sitting on the Senate Intelligence Committee are trying to tell you about what is going on today.

Educate your own damn self.

For more than two years, a handful of Democrats on the Senate intelligence committee have warned that the government is secretly interpreting its surveillance powers under the Patriot Act in a way that would be alarming if the public - or even others in Congress - knew about it.

Apparently, our government isn't just tapping our phones and reading our email anymore.  They are also getting copies of your bank statements, credit/debit card use, location information from your cellular provider, etc.

An NSA whistle-blower has revealed that plans to do this were in place before 9/11, but the attacks made a perfect excuse to get the plan implemented.

Mr. Binney described details about Stellar Wind, the N.S.A.'s top-secret domestic spying program begun after 9/11, which was so controversial that it nearly caused top Justice Department officials to resign in protest, in 2004.

"The decision must have been made in September 2001," Mr. Binney told me and the cinematographer Kirsten Johnson. "That's when the equipment started coming in." In this Op-Doc, Mr. Binney explains how the program he created for foreign intelligence gathering was turned inward on this country. He resigned over this in 2001 and began speaking out publicly in the last year.

Give that a little thought.  This program was so bad that Bush's people in the Justice Department threatened to all resign as a group.

It's still so bad that Democrats in the Senate are speaking out against their own party's political leader.
 
2013-02-13 02:26:46 PM  

Corvus: dittybopper: Corvus: So you are ok with cruise missiles to kill brown people because they cost millions of dollars to use?
or someone in a plane to kill brown people because it puts an American soldiers life in danger?

I'm actually OK with that.  I was a soldier once (albeit an intel weenie).  The idea that there should be at least some risk of losing US lives when we engage in military actions is a *GOOD* thing:  It helps act as a restraint upon unnecessary use of that force.  We can balance the potential loss to the US against our interests, and decide if it's worth it.

If, on the other hand, there is essentially zero risk that an American service member will get anything worse than a mild case of hemorrhoids, then that opens up the possibility of military action where previously we wouldn't have used it.

Think of your worst nightmare of an administration from a foreign policy standpoint.  Doesn't matter what party or ideology, just imagine them having the ability to remotely kill people they designate as enemies with no political costs.

But that's not what is happening. Once again this is all a theoretical not based in the reality of the situation and also not a specific issue about drones.

Serious you thinking that if we put more US troops life in danger it will stop people from having wars I think is pretty unrealistic.

You were an intel weenie? Then you demanded to do you intel work were where you could get shot right? Because you'd be a hypocrite to say that you wanted the safety of your office while demanding others to be put in danger... Right?


The issue is that drones have been used by the CIA (which is NOT part of the military) to conduct lethal strikes in allied countries (like Pakistan) and the frequency is increasing.

It's the same as the questions that were raised during the Bin Laden raid.

There is no way that sitting politicians in Pakistan will not publicly complain about the strikes, especially when civilian casualties occur - and this has been happening.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan
 
2013-02-13 02:29:17 PM  

Corvus: Can someone explain to me why people are freaking out about drones so much? Why do you not have a problem with a plane or a missile destroying killing everyone in a building but if its from a drone you freak out? If everyone is getting killed, who cares what dropped the bomb.

Is this one of those "I am frightened by new technology" things.

I know I will get people just flipping out or name calling because they probably don't actually have a rational answer but I am really curious.


No you get called an idiot because your question is idiotic.

We will gladly loudly object to Obama's murderhorses the next time he orders a cavalry charge.
 
2013-02-13 02:30:40 PM  
I'm mostly with Corvus here. The issue isn't with the tech, it's with abuse of power. And there's not even really a solid argument as to how drones make the abuse easier - just cheaper I suppose.

But if they're used where a piloted craft could legally have gone to do things a piloted craft could legally do I say good. If not, then the issue isn't the tech - a piloted plane could be used the same way! The issue is the underlying abuse that wouldn't change regardless of piloting requirements.

Police fly-overs are a great example - if they're legal already why NOT use a drone? Cheaper to fly, less risk to a human pilot in case of weather or other issue.
 
2013-02-13 02:33:46 PM  

fo_sho!: Corvus: dittybopper: Corvus: So you are ok with cruise missiles to kill brown people because they cost millions of dollars to use?
or someone in a plane to kill brown people because it puts an American soldiers life in danger?

I'm actually OK with that.  I was a soldier once (albeit an intel weenie).  The idea that there should be at least some risk of losing US lives when we engage in military actions is a *GOOD* thing:  It helps act as a restraint upon unnecessary use of that force.  We can balance the potential loss to the US against our interests, and decide if it's worth it.

If, on the other hand, there is essentially zero risk that an American service member will get anything worse than a mild case of hemorrhoids, then that opens up the possibility of military action where previously we wouldn't have used it.

Think of your worst nightmare of an administration from a foreign policy standpoint.  Doesn't matter what party or ideology, just imagine them having the ability to remotely kill people they designate as enemies with no political costs.

But that's not what is happening. Once again this is all a theoretical not based in the reality of the situation and also not a specific issue about drones.

Serious you thinking that if we put more US troops life in danger it will stop people from having wars I think is pretty unrealistic.

You were an intel weenie? Then you demanded to do you intel work were where you could get shot right? Because you'd be a hypocrite to say that you wanted the safety of your office while demanding others to be put in danger... Right?

The issue is that drones have been used by the CIA (which is NOT part of the military) to conduct lethal strikes in allied countries (like Pakistan) and the frequency is increasing.

It's the same as the questions that were raised during the Bin Laden raid.

There is no way that sitting politicians in Pakistan will not publicly complain about the strikes, especially when civilian casualties occur - and this has been happening.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Drone_attacks_in_Pakistan


So is your issue with the CIA making kill designations or with the method they're using to effect them?

I'm guessing its the first. In which case the drone isn't your issue - it's the powers all three branches of the federal government have assigned to the CIA.
 
2013-02-13 02:41:01 PM  

Deneb81: fo_sho!: Corvus: dittybopper: Corvus: So you are ok with cruise missiles to kill brown people because they cost millions of dollars to use?
or someone in a plane to kill brown people because it puts an American soldiers life in danger?

I'm actually OK with that.  I was a soldier once (albeit an intel weenie).  The idea that there should be at least some risk of losing US lives when we engage in military actions is a *GOOD* thing:  It helps act as a restraint upon unnecessary use of that force.  We can balance the potential loss to the US against our interests, and decide if it's worth it.

If, on the other hand, there is essentially zero risk that an American service member will get anything worse than a mild case of hemorrhoids, then that opens up the possibility of military action where previously we wouldn't have used it.

Think of your worst nightmare of an administration from a foreign policy standpoint.  Doesn't matter what party or ideology, just imagine them having the ability to remotely kill people they designate as enemies with no political costs.

But that's not what is happening. Once again this is all a theoretical not based in the reality of the situation and also not a specific issue about drones.

Serious you thinking that if we put more US troops life in danger it will stop people from having wars I think is pretty unrealistic.

You were an intel weenie? Then you demanded to do you intel work were where you could get shot right? Because you'd be a hypocrite to say that you wanted the safety of your office while demanding others to be put in danger... Right?

The issue is that drones have been used by the CIA (which is NOT part of the military) to conduct lethal strikes in allied countries (like Pakistan) and the frequency is increasing.

It's the same as the questions that were raised during the Bin Laden raid.

There is no way that sitting politicians in Pakistan will not publicly complain about the strikes, especially when civilian casualties oc ...


I'm not saying it is MY problem - I'm saying that is the reason why it is an international incident and senators are bringing it up.

http://www.nytimes.com/2013/02/08/us/politics/senate-panel-will-ques ti on-brennan-on-targeted-killings.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

The argument up thread is that drone strikes are no different than soldier strikes. The CIA used to have to request resources from the military to conduct airstrikes. Now they fly their own drones, and kill people. That is the big difference and that is why it is a big deal.

Or you could just RTFA.

From TFA

 "But the CIA has also become more militarized. Its unmanned aircraft carry missiles, and the spy agency has not been shy about launching them into nations where Congress has not explicitly authorized war. The airstrikes in Pakistan that have generated civilian casualties-and international controversy-are CIA operations. "
 
2013-02-13 02:41:26 PM  

Deneb81: there's not even really a solid argument as to how drones make the abuse easier - just cheaper I suppose.


That's not the least bit true.

There are a limited number of people the police or the feds can send out when they want to put a tail on someone.  It's impossible to ever imagine them having enough personel to track every citizen's movements.

However, in an age where Google already has self driving cars and Facebook already automatically tags pictures of it's users, it's not the least bit unlikely that drones won't become smaller and automated over time.

This enables something entirely different once technology advances a bit more.  The possibility of everybody being tracked all the time.  Something impossible with a helicopter.
 
Displayed 50 of 82 comments


Oldest | « | 1 | 2 | » | Newest | Show all


View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report